From: Menglong Dong <menglong.dong@linux.dev>
To: menglong8.dong@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org, bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org
Cc: daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, eddyz87@gmail.com,
song@kernel.org, yonghong.song@linux.dev, kpsingh@kernel.org,
sdf@fomichev.me, haoluo@google.com, jolsa@kernel.org,
mattbobrowski@google.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
mhiramat@kernel.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
andrii@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, martin.lau@kernel.org,
eddyz87@gmail.com, yonghong.song@linux.dev, clm@meta.com,
ihor.solodrai@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: test bpf_get_func_arg() for tp_btf
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 14:53:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5957081.DvuYhMxLoT@7940hx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <379dc407b6e024b766ad40bfb899f8f6ce92e869d23c748275d0c054d62a569a@mail.kernel.org>
On 2026/1/16 12:09 bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org write:
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> > index 64a9c95d4acf..848fab952719 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/get_func_args_test.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ void test_get_func_args_test(void)
> >
> > ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval >> 16, 1, "test_run");
> > ASSERT_EQ(topts.retval & 0xffff, 1234 + 29, "test_run");
> > + ASSERT_OK(trigger_module_test_read(1), "trigger_read");
> >
> > ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test1_result, 1, "test1_result");
> > ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test2_result, 1, "test2_result");
> > ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test3_result, 1, "test3_result");
> > ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test4_result, 1, "test4_result");
>
> The trigger_module_test_read() call fires the new tracepoints which run the
> tp_test1 and tp_test2 BPF programs. These programs set test5_result and
> test6_result respectively. However, there are no assertions here to verify
> that test5_result and test6_result equal 1.
>
> Should there be:
>
> ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test5_result, 1, "test5_result");
> ASSERT_EQ(skel->bss->test6_result, 1, "test6_result");
>
> Without these assertions, the test will pass even if the tp_btf
> bpf_get_func_arg() functionality is broken.
You are totally right, my bad :/
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/get_func_args_test.c
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > +__u64 test5_result = 0;
> > +SEC("tp_btf/bpf_testmod_fentry_test1_tp")
> > +int BPF_PROG(tp_test1)
> > +{
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > +__u64 test6_result = 0;
> > +SEC("tp_btf/bpf_testmod_fentry_test2_tp")
> > +int BPF_PROG(tp_test2)
> > +{
>
> These result variables are set by the BPF programs but never checked in the
> test driver, as noted above.
>
>
> ---
> AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug.
> See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md
>
> CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/21055137351
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-01-16 6:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-16 3:50 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: support bpf_get_func_arg() for BPF_TRACE_RAW_TP Menglong Dong
2026-01-16 3:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] " Menglong Dong
2026-01-16 4:20 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-01-16 6:56 ` Menglong Dong
2026-01-16 3:50 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: test bpf_get_func_arg() for tp_btf Menglong Dong
2026-01-16 4:09 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-01-16 6:53 ` Menglong Dong [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5957081.DvuYhMxLoT@7940hx \
--to=menglong.dong@linux.dev \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bot+bpf-ci@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=ihor.solodrai@linux.dev \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@kernel.org \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mattbobrowski@google.com \
--cc=menglong8.dong@gmail.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sdf@fomichev.me \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=yonghong.song@linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox